Necesidades de la gente en el paisaje

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

Review

People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of Landscape And Urban Planning contributions Rodney H. Matsuoka, Rachel Kaplan ∗ University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, Dana Building, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041, USA Received 8 May 2007; received in revised form 2 August 2007; accepted 18 September 2007 Available online 30 October 2007

Abstract The articles published in Landscape and Urban Planning during the past 16 years provide valuable insights into how humans interact with outdoor urban environments. This review paper explores the wide spectrum of human dimensions and issues, or human needs, addressed by 90 of these studies. As a basis for analysis, the major themes tapped by the findings were classified into two overarching groups containing three categories each. The Nature needs, directly linked with the physical features of the environmental setting, were categorized in terms of contact with nature, aesthetic preference, and recreation and play. The role of the environment is less immediate in the Human-interaction group, which includes the issues of social interaction, citizen participation in the design process, and community identity. Most significantly, the publications offer strong support for the important role nearby natural environments play in human well-being. Urban settings that provide nature contact are valuable not only in their own right, but also for meeting other needs in a manner unique to these more natural settings. In addition, although addressed in different ways, remarkable similarities exist concerning these six people requirements across diverse cultures and political systems.

Urban residents worldwide express a desire for contact with nature and each other, attractive environments, places in which to recreate and play, privacy, a more active role in the design of their community, and a sense of community identity. The studies reviewed here offer continued evidence that the design of urban landscapes strongly influences the well-being and behavior of users and nearby inhabitants. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Nature contact; Preference; Social interaction; Citizen participation; Community identity; Recreation

Contents 1.

2.

3.

∗

Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.1. Criteria for selection of articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2. Method of analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results: description of studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1. Geographic representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2. Urban nature context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3. Empirical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results: categories of human needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1. Nature needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1.1. Contact with nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1.2. Aesthetic preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1.3. Recreation and play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2. Human-interaction needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2.1. Social interaction and privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 734 763 1061; fax: +1 734 936 2195.

E-mail addresses: rmatsuok@umich.edu (R.H. Matsuoka), rkaplan@umich.edu (R. Kaplan).

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009

8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 12 12

8

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

4.

3.2.2. Citizen participation in the design process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2.3. Sense of community identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3. Combinations of needs categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Implications and applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1. A consistent and persistent message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2. Theme and variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3. Participation as a vital tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.4. Before it is too late . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.5. A need for continued research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP) has served as a key source of insights regarding the importance of the natural environment in human well-being. The purpose of this paper is to identify major themes that cut across a subset of these individual studies. More specifically, we selected 90 empirical articles that were published in LUP between 1991 and 2006 that focus on how people interact with the urban environment.

The 16-year period of our review marks the time that J.E. Rodiek has carried the mantle as editor of LUP. For 16 years before that E.A. Weddle was at the helm of what became LUP. Under Rodiek’s leadership, the journal has grown substantially in terms of number of volumes and articles published, the range of topics, and international visibility of the underlying issues.

With the world evermore urbanized, a focus on meeting human needs in the urban context is vital. With urbanization evermore threatening the availability of nature, a focus on the vital role that nature plays in human well-being is urgent. The themes that emerge from this analysis provide important mandates for city planning, landscape design, and environmental decision making. These themes are central to a very important aspect of what LUP has been about.

1. Method 1.1. Criteria for selection of articles The period of analysis is in volumes 20–78, appearing in 1991–2006. Criteria for inclusion in the database included the context, method, and issues. The context had to focus on some aspect of the urban outdoor environment. The method had to be empirical, in other words drawing on original data involving surveys, interviews, observations, or case studies. The issues, broadly defined, entail human needs, preferences, attitudes, and activities. These were generally addressed by the design or function of the setting.

Any decision about how to bound our study necessarily also is a decision about what is excluded from the analysis. In terms of context, excluded are articles with a focus on rural environments, non-urban forests, or many other settings that are not essentially urban. Methods not included were all those that do not focus on original data, for example, literature reviews, policy comparisons, recommendations for methodologies or approaches.

We also excluded articles whose major emphasis is on testing or comparing methods of presenting the environment (e.g.,

12 12 12 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 18

virtual approaches) or on the development of assessment tools per se.

A total of 90 articles are included in our analysis. Table 1 shows the distribution of these articles across the time span under review. While these constitute a small percent of LUP publications, the table shows a marked increase in the number of empirical articles with an urban emphasis. While the journal published 26% more articles in the most recent 4 years as opposed to the initial 4 years in this analysis, the same periods show an 83% increase in articles included in our analysis.

1.2. Method of analysis Each article was summarized and categorized in terms of several dimensions. For descriptive purposes, and to examine the breadth of empirical work in this area, tabulations included the country where the study was conducted, type of site (e.g., brownfield, greenway, public open space), and research methods that were used.

Articles were also examined in terms of the type of issues or human dimension reported in the findings. The initial listing of these categories was drawn from the publications and used as the basis for further analysis. Through an iterative process of examining similarities in content and questions addressed by the studies the categorization evolved into identification of major themes tapped by the studies. Development of these themes was a collaborative process based on the initial tabulations of the studies. The final thematic areas, discussed in the next section, are not intended as a definitive categorization system, nor are they exhaustive of the topics addressed. The major purpose of the analysis was rather to gain a larger picture that sheds light on this vast body of research. Before turning to these issues, we Table 1 Articles included in the study and years of publication Four-year period 1991–1994 1995–1998 1999–2002 2003–2006

Total articles published in LUP

Articles included in this study

Percent of total

265 311 307 360

7 20 22 41

3 6 7 11

1243

90

7

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

first discuss the breadth of the articles in terms of country, sites, and methods.

2. Results: description of studies 2.1. Geographic representation The 90 studies were conducted in 23 different countries, almost equally divided between North America and the rest of the world. The North American studies included 8 in Canada and 38 in the United States. In addition to 5 studies in the UK, there were 16 in Europe, 1 of which was conducted in two countries (Netherlands [3], Finland [2], Germany [2], Sweden [2], Switzerland [2], Belgium [1], Greece [1], Italy [1], Norway [1], Spain [2]). Twelve studies were conducted in Asia, including Japan (6), China (3), Singapore (2), and Taiwan (1). The Middle East was represented by Turkey (3), Saudi Arabia (2), and Jordan (1). Australia had three studies and South America (Brazil) had one study.

9

studies into six major categories, and further divided these into two overarching groups. The major distinction between the two groups is in the centrality of the physical environment in serving the set of needs. The Nature needs are more directly linked with the physical features of the environmental settings, while for the Human-interaction needs, the role of the environment is less direct. As will be seen the majority of the studies concern several of these categories.

3.1. Nature needs The Nature needs designation refers to the wide range of ways in which human needs or purposes are met by the natural environment. This is a major, overarching grouping that includes 92% of the studies in the database. As shown in Table 2, three categories are included in this grouping. As is readily apparent in the table, many of the studies can be categorized in terms of more than one of the three Nature needs. In fact, the studies are about equally divided between those designated as falling in a single category (48%) and those reflecting multiple categories.

2.2. Urban nature context The environmental contexts range in scale from rooftop gardens to greenbelts and greenways as well as urban stream corridors and forests. They include hospital grounds and assisted living facilities, a corporate campus, residential neighborhoods, parks and school yards, and even derelict lands. The environments in some studies are represented through graphic means.

In other cases, the environment is viewed through a window, or is the actual setting of the study. Though the studies represent a great diversity of settings, residential neighborhoods were the most frequent context.

2.3. Empirical methods Over a quarter of the studies (27%) used surveys as a key data gathering tool. The other two approaches that were most widely used were interviews (24%) and case studies (24%). Observation was included in 16% of the studies and 12% relied on preference ratings. Nine percent of the studies relied on existing data sources, including, for example, the selling price of residences or hotel room prices as the basis for hedonic and economic models (Jim and Chen, 2006b; Lange and Schaeffer, 2001; Luttik, 2000; Morancho, 2003; Tyrv¨ainen, 1997), state accident data (Mok et al., 2006), and information from major regional newspapers (Luymes, 1997).

Some of the studies used a mixture of these methods. In particular, the studies that used focus groups or workshops all incorporated at least one of the other methods mentioned. Each of the four studies that used both surveys and interviews included one additional method as well.

3. Results: categories of human needs There are many bases for categorizing these studies. The studies address a wide spectrum of human dimensions and purposes, which we refer to here as “human needs.” We have organized the

3.1.1. Contact with nature This category reflects a variety of ways in which the studies incorporated contact with nature, natural elements, and qualities of nature, including views of such settings and/or experiences with them. The studies addressed contact with nature in terms of concerns such as emotional, mental, and physical health, as well as the sense of satisfaction with and livability of one’s social and physical environment. They document the broad range of ways in which contact with nature contributes to improved quality of life, even if the encounter is only a brief opportunity to escape the urban bustle, relax, and possibly contemplate or enjoy the time in nature. More than two-thirds (70%) of the studies addressing Nature needs are included in the contact with nature category.

Across these studies the importance of contact with the natural environment is shown to hold across a wide range of urban contexts. These include larger areas, such as greenways (Gobster, 1995; Shafer et al., 2000), parks (Chiesura, 2004; Jim ¨ uner and Kendle, 2006), and Chen, 2006a; Oguz, 2000; Ozg¨ stream corridors (Asakawa et al., 2004), and urban forests (Coles and Bussey, 2000; Kaplan and Austin, 2004; Roovers et al., 2002; Simson, 2000). Smaller areas are also included among the studies, for example, gardens within assisted living facilities (Rodiek and Fried, 2005) or hospital gardens and grounds (Barnhart et al., 1998; Sherman et al., 2005), rooftop gardens (Yuen and Hien, 2005), school play yards containing natural landscape elements (Herrington and Studtmann, 1998) and streetscapes designed to incorporate vegetation (Antupit et al., 1996; Mok et al., 2006). Derelict lands overgrown with vegetation (Pauleit et al., 2005), naturalistic and more obviously designed landscapes, such as botanical gardens, provide the ¨ uner many benefits of nature contact for local residents (Ozg¨ and Kendle, 2006).

In addition to specific sites, the benefits of contact with nature were also manifested at the larger scale of landscaped portions of a community. For example, the “green” residential atmosphere

10

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

Table 2 Studies that include Nature-based needs Type of site

Assisted living facilities Assorted urban and rural sites Corporate campus grounds

Type of human need Contact with nature (64%)a

Aesthetic preference (50%)a

× × × ×

× × ×

Derelict lands × × Green open spaces–residential neighborhoods

×

Green open spaces–urban Greenways

× × × × × × × × × × ×

Hospital grounds Municipal public spaces Parks

× ×

×

× ×

×

× × ×

×

×

× × ×

×

Residential neighborhoods

× ×

×

× × × × ×

× × × × × × × × × × × × × × × ×

Residential yards ×

× ×

Canada Greece United Kingdom

De Sousa (2003) Damigos and Kaliampakos (2003) Pauleit et al. (2005)

United States

Austin (2004)

Canada Brazil Canada

Balram and Dragi´cevi´c (2005) Frischenbruder and Pellegrino (2006) Quayle (1995) Taylor et al. (1995) Von Haaren and Reich (2006) Toccolini et al. (2006) Yokohari et al. (2006) Tan (2006) Gobster (1995) Lindsey (1999) Shafer et al. (2000) Yabes et al. (1997)

Germany Italy Japan Singapore United States

× × × ×

United States China The Netherlands Turkey United Kingdom

× ×

United States

Owens (1997) Jim and Chen (2006a) Chiesura (2004) Oguz (2000) Jorgensen et al. (2002) ¨ uner and Kendle (2006) Ozg¨ Gobster (1998) Gobster (2001)

×

United States

Nasar and Kang (1999)

Australia China

Syme et al. (2001) Jim (1993) Jim and Chen (2006b) Ge and Hokao (2006) Abu-Ghazzeh (1996) Luttik (2000) Saleh (1999) Morancho (2003) Berg (2004) Huang (2006) D¨okmeci and Berk¨oz (2000) T¨urko˘glu (1997) Pacione (2003) Crow et al. (2006) Ellis et al. (2006) Hull et al. (1994) Kaplan and Austin (2004) Lucy and Phillips (1997) Martin et al. (2004) Naderi and Raman (2005) Owens (1993) Sullivan (1994) Vogt and Marans (2004)

× Japan Jordan The Netherlands Saudi Arabia Spain Sweden Taiwan Turkey

×

× ×

Rodiek and Fried (2005) Carles et al. (1999) Hands and Brown (2002) Kaplan (1993)

Barnhart et al. (1998) Sherman et al. (2005)

× ×

× ×

United States Spain Canada United States

Canada United States

×

×

Residential home architecture

Researchers

Recreation/play (37%)a

× × ×

Location (country)

× × ×

United Kingdom United States

× × × × × ×

× Australia ×

Daniels and Kirkpatrick (2006) Syme et al. (2004)

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

11

Table 2 (Continued ) Type of site

Type of human need Contact with nature (64%)a

Aesthetic preference (50%)a

Location (country)

Researchers

Canada

Henderson et al. (1998) Zmyslony and Gagnon (1998) Helfand et al. (2006) Larsen and Harlan (2006)

Recreation/play (37%)a

× × × ×

×

United States

Rooftop gardens School play yards

× ×

×

×

Singapore United States

Yuen and Hien (2005) Herrington and Studtmann (1998)

Stream corridors

×

× × ×

×

Japan

×

United Kingdom United States

Asakawa et al. (2004) Yamashita (2002) Fordham et al. (1991) Brody et al. (2005) Schauman and Salisbury (1998)

× × Streetscapes × × × Town ×

× ×

Japan United States

Todorova et al. (2004) Antupit et al. (1996) Mok et al. (2006) Sullivan and Lovell (2006)

×

United States

Palmer (1997) Stewart et al. (2004)

Switzerland Computer Modeling

Lange and Schaeffer (2001) Zacharias (1999)

Belgium Finland

Roovers et al. (2002) Tyrv¨ainen (1997) Tyrv¨ainen and V¨aa¨ n¨anen (1998) Oku and Fukamachi (2006) Fjørtoft and Sageie (2000) H¨ornsten and Fredman (2000) Coles and Bussey (2000) Simson (2000)

×

Views of natural landscapes Views of urban high rises

×

× ×

Woodlands or forests–urban

× × ×

×

× × × a

×

× × × × ×

×

Japan Norway Sweden United Kingdom

Percentage of studies manifesting this need.

was found to be the most important community feature contributing to inhabitants’ appreciation of their neighborhood (Crow et al., 2006). Similarly, the negative effects of retail land use on neighborhood preference and satisfaction were reduced by the presence of greater levels of tree or shrub cover (Sullivan and Lovell, 2006; Ellis et al., 2006). In addition, walking for health purposes was encouraged by neighborhoods landscaped with appropriate amounts of water features and trees (Naderi and Raman, 2005).

Finally, through the use of real estate economic models, indirect evidence of the benefits of nature was reported. Specifically, people’s desire to live near or have a view of nature was revealed through greater housing and hotel room prices (Jim and Chen, 2006b; Lange and Schaeffer, 2001; Luttik, 2000; Morancho, 2003; Tyrv¨ainen, 1997).

that urban landscapes dominated by natural features show strong preference.

Among the many contexts for studies investigating such preferences were botanical gardens and parks (Jim and Chen, 2006a; ¨ uner and Kendle, 2006), greenways (Gobster, Oguz, 2000; Ozg¨ 1995), streetscapes (Sullivan and Lovell, 2006; Todorova et al., 2004), and neighborhoods (Berg, 2004; Crow et al., 2006; D¨okmeci and Berk¨oz, 2000; Ellis et al., 2006; Kaplan and Austin, 2004; Vogt and Marans, 2004). In addition, such preference is a key factor in the acceptance by local residents of revitalized brownfields (Damigos and Kaliampakos, 2003) and stream corridors (Asakawa et al., 2004; Schauman and Salisbury, 1998), and employees’ acceptance of an ecological rehabilitation landscape within corporate campus grounds (Hands and Brown, 2002).

3.1.2. Aesthetic preference The second category in the Nature needs grouping, aesthetic preference, involves a range of topics related to the bases for preference, including such issues as scenic beauty, degree of cleanliness, and pleasant sounds. Of the studies addressing Nature needs in the database, over half (54%) addressed some aspect of this category. These 44 studies provide strong support

3.1.3. Recreation and play The third of the Nature needs categories is recreation and play.

Of the studies incorporating Nature needs, 40% included this category. These studies include a wide range of activities—walking, jogging, cycling, hiking, and playing sports and games. As these studies show, the opportunities for recreation can be satisfied in many nature-based contexts. Important settings for recreation

12

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

and play include not only parks (Chiesura, 2004; Oguz, 2000; Gobster, 2001; Jim and Chen, 2006a), greenways (Gobster, 1995; Lindsey, 1999; Shafer et al., 2000; Yabes et al., 1997), and woodlands (Fjørtoft and Sageie, 2000; H¨ornsten and Fredman, 2000; Roovers et al., 2002), but also renovated brownfields (De Sousa, 2003), derelict lands (Damigos and Kaliampakos, 2003), rooftop gardens (Yuen and Hien, 2005), and revitalized stream corridors (Asakawa et al., 2004). The need for recreation, therefore, can be addressed by both traditional and nontraditional nature-based settings. As would be expected, the studies show the pervasive need for such opportunities across the age spectrum, diverse socio-economic groups, and nationalities.

3.2. Human-interaction needs The second group consists of needs that focus on human interactions promoted by the environments. Table 3 lists the studies that include any of the three categories subsumed by this group.

On the whole, the Human-interaction needs manifested themselves much less frequently than the Nature-based needs, with 56% of the studies in the database included in Table 3. Furthermore, the studies were more likely to fall into a single category of Human-interaction needs (66% of these studies) than in multiple categories.

3.2.1. Social interaction and privacy Of the three categories, social interaction and privacy needs appeared most often in the studies—58% of the studies that concerned Human-interaction needs. These studies expressed great optimism that improved social interactions can be promoted through properly designed urban spaces. These improvements include interactions among adolescents (Owens, 1997), different racial and ethnic groups (Gobster, 1998), and urban (Oguz, 2000; Shafer et al., 2000) and neighborhood residents as a whole (Saleh, 1999; Owens, 1993). Natural landscapes can sometimes play a key role in promoting social interaction. These include landscapes found within hospital grounds, urban parks, and greenway trails (Barnhart et al., 1998; Gobster, 1998; Oguz, 2000). In addition, by providing the public with a refuge from urban activity, privacy needs can be met in urban woodlands (Coles and Bussey, 2000), parks (Oguz, 2000), and rooftop gardens (Yuen and Hien, 2005).

3.2.2. Citizen participation in the design process Almost half of the studies (46%) in the Human-interaction group incorporated ways that citizens can participate in the design process. These studies speak to the importance of promoting citizen participation to achieve a superior design and to foster community support for urban landscapes. Furthermore, they provide evidence that municipal planners, designers, and researchers are recognizing this need. Interestingly, this recognition is taking place not only in countries with more democratic governments, such as Brazil (Frischenbruder and Pellegrino, 2006), Canada (Quayle, 1995), Germany (K¨uhn, 2003), Great Britain (Fordham et al., 1991), Italy (Toccolini et al., 2006), Japan (Yokohari et al., 2006), Singapore (Tan, 2006), Switzerland (Buchecker et al., 2003), The Netherlands (Chiesura, 2004),

and the United States (Al-Kodmany, 1999; Sancar, 1993), but also within less democratic countries such as Jordan (AbuGhazzeh, 1996) and Saudi Arabia (Al-Hathloul and Mughal, 1999; Saleh, 1999). Public input is seen as leading to a design that takes into account relevant human needs as well as the local culture, religion and history of a particular region.

3.2.3. Sense of community identity The last of the Human-interaction needs, sense of community identity, was included in 38% of the studies included in Table 3.

There is widespread recognition expressed in several of these papers that such identity is being lost worldwide among citizens in residential neighborhoods of major urban areas. The causes of this loss are being attributed to many factors, some of which involve outdoor design characteristics of these neighborhoods.

For example, Middle Eastern researchers cite improper designs that concentrate on community economics rather than residents’ needs (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1996), and indiscriminant applications of zoning regulations (Al-Hathloul and Mughal, 1999) and use of foreign Western residential neighborhood designs (Saleh, 1999).

In the United States, some researchers are concentrating on the loss of symbols and place identity of the residential environment (Hull et al., 1994; Lucy and Phillips, 1997). These researchers believe that enhancing the place identity of the physical environment can increase the sense of community attachment. Another study (Stewart et al., 2004) revealed that the presence of public or semi-public outdoor gathering places promotes community identity.

3.3. Combinations of needs categories Since these studies were all published in LUP, it is hardly surprising that the environmental context is a salient characteristic.

Very few (8%) of the studies included none of the nature themes and about one half of the others included two or all three themes.

Almost half the studies (48%) included at least one of the Naturebased needs as well as one or more of Human-interaction needs.

Table 4 provides a summary of the combinations of categories reflected by the 90 studies in the database.

Taken together, an important contribution of these studies lies in their many examples of the importance of seeing these human needs addressed in combination. Most significantly, urban settings with prominent natural features that address the nature contact need can meet other requirements in a manner unique to these more natural environments. Tables 2 and 3 include many studies that show ways that contact with nature can at the same time meet the other two categories of Nature needs (aesthetic preference or recreational purposes), as well as the Humaninteraction needs. For example, urban woodlands are seen as beneficially affecting those who live near them by providing opportunities for contact with nature, recreation, and privacy, as well as offering increased sense of community attachment (Simson, 2000). In addition, greenways are becoming more common in urban areas worldwide. Their use for recreation and social interaction (Shafer et al., 2000; Tan, 2006; Yabes et al., 1997) as well as aesthetic qualities (Gobster, 1995) and potential for enhancing sense of community identity (Shafer et al., 2000;

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

13

Table 3 Studies that include Human-interaction-based needs Type of site

Type of human need Social interaction/privacy (32%)a

Derelict lands Green open spaces–residential neighborhoods Green open spaces–urban Greenbelts

×

×

× × × Hospital grounds

× ×

Municipal public spaces Parks

× × × × × × × × × × × × × × × × × ×

Residential yards Rooftop gardens School play yards

Sense of community Identity (21%)a

×

× ×

× × ×

Greenways

Residential neighborhoods

Citizen participation (26%)a

× × × × × ×

× × × × ×

×

×

× × ×

× × × ×

Canada United States Canada Germany and The Netherlands Brazil

De Sousa (2003) Austin (2004) Balram and Dragi´cevi´c (2005) K¨uhn (2003)

Canada Italy Japan Singapore United States

Barnhart et al. (1998) Sherman et al. (2005)

United States The Netherlands Turkey United Kingdom United States

Owens (1997) Chiesura (2004) Oguz (2000) ¨ uner and Kendle (2006) Ozg¨ Gobster (1998) Gobster (2001) Solecki and Welch (1995)

Japan Jordan Saudi Arabia

Ge and Hokao (2006) Abu-Ghazzeh (1996) Al-Hathloul and Mughal (1999) Saleh (1999) Berg (2004) Huang (2006) D¨okmeci and Berk¨oz (2000) T¨urko˘glu (1997) Pacione (2003) Al-Kodmany (1999) Crow et al. (2006) Hull et al. (1994) Lucy and Phillips (1997) Luymes (1997) Owens (1993) Vogt and Marans (2004)

Sweden Taiwan Turkey

× × ×

×

Frischenbruder and Pellegrino (2006) Quayle (1995) Taylor et al. (1995) Toccolini et al. (2006) Yokohari et al. (2006) Tan (2006) Lindsey (1999) Shafer et al. (2000) Yabes et al. (1997)

Canada United States

United Kingdom United States

×

× ×

Researchers

×

×

×

Location (country)

United States Singapore United States

Larsen and Harlan (2006) Yuen and Hien (2005) Herrington and Studtmann (1998)

Stream corridors

× × ×

Japan United Kingdom United States

Asakawa et al. (2004) Fordham et al. (1991) Schauman and Salisbury (1998)

Streetscapes

×

United States

Antupit et al. (1996)

Town

× ×

Switzerland United States

Buchecker et al. (2003) Sancar (1993) Stewart et al. (2004)

United Kingdom

Coles and Bussey (2000) Simson (2000)

× Woodlands or forests a

Percentage of studies manifesting this need.

×

×

× ×

14

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

Table 4 Number of studies summarized in terms of needs categories Human-interaction categories

No nature

Nature categories Nature contact, 1

No H-I Social/privacy: A Participation: B Community: C A and B A and C B and C A, B and C Total

1 4

1

Aesthetic preference, 2

Recreation play, 3

6

12

1

9

6

1

5

40

3 2 2 1 2 3

1 1

4

3 1 1

1 2

1

4 1

18 11 4 2 5 6 4

10

90

1 7

Total 1 and 3

16

Taylor et al., 1995), make them appear as an ideal remedy for numerous urban ills.

The pattern among the 90 studies shows that the humaninteraction categories frequently operate in combination with needs in the nature group (Table 4). In particular, social interaction and privacy were infrequent as the sole focus of the study; rather they generally (90% of the studies that included the category) were studied jointly with at least one of the nature categories. Over two-thirds of these studies had nature contact as one of the nature categories. In other words, settings that provide for contact with nature may provide useful venues for social interaction and privacy opportunities. Clearly the sample of studies comprising our database may not be representative of all relevant research and hidden alternative causes may exist.

Nor can these categorizations unveil underlying explanations for these associations. Nonetheless the analysis serves as a basis for future explorations.

4. Implications and applications The 90 empirical studies published in the 16-year span in LUP that constitute our database offer some important insights and mandates. These have implications for urban planners, landscape architects, architects, and other professional designers as well as citizen groups, members of homeowner associations, and others concerned about the relationship between the urban environment and human well-being. Appendix A provides a sense of some of the findings and conclusions by quotes from a sample of the studies. Here we offer some major conclusions that are derived from these studies.

4.1. A consistent and persistent message The international scope of the articles we examined shows substantial consistency with respect to the role played by the outdoor environment. Perhaps the most prominent findings emerging from this review are the strong confirmation of the importance of the nearby natural environment to human wellbeing and the remarkable similarities that exist worldwide concerning these six human needs in the urban landscape. Spaces that address people’s needs for contact with nature can be small

5

2 and 3

1, 2 and 3

1

1

1 1 2 1

15

14

1 1

19

1 and 2

1 4

or large, on a rooftop or along a linear path. They need to be available in residential settings, and also at workplaces, schools, retirement homes, and health facilities. Although the needs are addressed in different ways in separate regions of the world, the nature of the needs themselves is very similar across diverse cultures and political systems. Wherever they may be, urban residents express a desire for contact with nature and each other, attractive environments, places for recreation and play, privacy, a more active role in the design of their community, and a sense of community identity.

4.2. Theme and variation While the importance of nearby nature is a constant, people of different ages, gender, and socio-economic status can differ greatly in how they use and perceive both built and more natural urban landscapes. Many of these differences are shared across diverse cultures. For example, younger people throughout the world are attracted to more active pursuits (e.g., sports, interactive play with landscape features), while adults and the elderly are more likely to enjoy nature opportunities that afford contemplation (Chiesura, 2004; Crow et al., 2006; Oguz, 2000; Oku and Fukamachi, 2006; Sherman et al., 2005). Residents of higher socio-economic status also use or value urban nature areas to a greater degree than those of lower means (Balram and Dragi´cevi´c, 2005; Crow et al., 2006; Damigos and Kaliampakos, 2003; D¨okmeci and Berk¨oz, 2000; Lindsey, 1999; Roovers et al., 2002; Shafer et al., 2000; Vogt and Marans, 2004) and live in neighborhoods richer in vegetation (Martin et al., 2004). The socio-economic differences, however, may be a reflection of how richer people use their resources rather than an expression of differential preferences, benefits, or desires.

4.3. Participation as a vital tool Conflicts can arise while trying to satisfy some of these needs in the design of urban landscapes. For example, contact with nature can clash with recreational needs when the preservation of ecological reserves are involved (Gobster, 2001). Likewise, aesthetic preference can conflict with human recreational desires

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

(Asakawa et al., 2004) or ecological issues (Hands and Brown, 2002; Schauman and Salisbury, 1998).

Given the diverse and potentially conflicting needs and preferences, a balance must be sought to attain wide public support.

As some of these studies demonstrate, people’s desire to participate in decisions that affect them is expressed in many nature-based situations. Given the importance that such settings play, involving local groups early in the planning process is particularly valuable. Conflicts can be anticipated and addressed in the design solutions of sites and facilities. Participation can also lead to outcomes that respect the local culture, religion, or history of the community. Although one can argue that the six needs investigated in this review are universally desired, the ways to address them are not universal and require sensitivity to local circumstances.

4.4. Before it is too late As Tables 2 and 3 show, a wide variety of spaces can meet the same needs and a particular setting can meet multiples needs. For example, nature settings often enhance social interactions which, in turn, can help foster a sense of community. Nature elements are also particularly effective in creating privacy in an outdoor space. Thus, loss of nearby natural settings can lead to ramifying negative consequences. In addition, some researchers, particularly in the Middle East (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1996; Al-Hathloul and Mughal, 1999; Saleh, 1999), place much of the blame for the breakdown of traditional community social networks on the nontraditional Western-style residential layouts currently being introduced. The studies reviewed here offer substantial evidence that the design of urban landscapes strongly influences the behavior and well-being of users.

Valuable lessons can be learned from planning successes, and mistakes.

4.5. A need for continued research LUP is not the only journal that has included studies addressing the themes we have discussed. In fact, the articles in our database can serve as useful resources for accessing the larger literature. As such, conclusions based on these 90 studies may offer a limited perspective of what has been done and what future needs might be. Furthermore, the presentation here has not focused on the specific findings of the 90 studies, but rather the emphasis is on the questions to which they contribute understanding. At the same time, however, by selecting empirical articles that have received close peer scrutiny this review highlights an important set of publications. Moreover, the focus on LUP is appropriate given its far-reaching international and interdisciplinary audiences and its high impact factor, 2.03. (The Journal Citation Report, published by Thomson Institute for Scientific Information [ISI], shows LUP’s 2006 Journal Impact Factor, as the highest for journals addressing urban environmental issues.)

While having widespread applicability, the themes discussed here also call for needed research. There remains much to be learned about the relationships among the six human

15

needs examined here and other issues not discussed in this paper.

With the rapid urbanization of the countryside around the world, it is important to examine issues of scale in terms of human benefits. There is a tension between protecting largescale tracts of land and providing small areas that afford frequent nature opportunities. How do communities approach this tension?

Complementary to evidence of increased crime when opportunities for nature are undermined, would be the further substantiation of increased sense of community identity and civility in places that address people’s needs for nearby nature.

It would be valuable to study examples of different participatory approaches as means of respecting local patterns. How much of the increase in social disorder might be attributed to changes in the physical environment as compared to cultural, political, or economic factors resulting from rapid social change and modern urbanization? Research on the individual and community benefits derived from programs that encourage such participation with respect to nature-based activities could lead to wider adoption of such programs. Such environments, in turn, not only meet Nature-based needs, but also provide opportunities for fulfilling Human-interaction needs.

Although we have organized this collection of human needs into six categories within two general groupings, it is important to be reminded that these needs often interact with each other. Within a given urban setting, addressing one need can affect the fulfillment of other purposes. These needs may also interact with political, cultural, historical, religious, economic, circulation, or security issues not investigated in this paper, as well as important ecological requirements of the local natural environment.

The studies published in LUP in the last 16 years make a substantial contribution in providing a wealth of information about meeting people’s needs in urban landscapes. Settings that properly provide for these needs will result in healthier, more effective, and more socially involved urban inhabitants.

We look forward to the insights to be gained in the decades ahead.

Acknowledgements We appreciate support from the University of Michigan’s Rackham Graduate School, administered by the School of Natural Resources and Environment, as well as from the USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station.

Appendix A Sample of findings and conclusions that address the combination of contact with Nature- and Human-interaction-based needs.

16

Type of site

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

Researchers

Method

Findings/conclusions Nature contact

Green open spaces–residential neighborhood

Greenways

Hospital grounds

Park

Residential neighborhood

Austin (2004) Interview

Human interaction

“Eleven of the 15 residents expressed “The open space conservation subdivision pleasure with respect to the ‘openness’ of seems to provide the preservation of natural their neighborhood. A second benefit, resources in the form of open space, while at expressed by eight residents, pertained to the same time offering opportunities for viewing natural settings or appreciating the residents to take a more active role in easy access they have to nature from their managing these resources” (p. 252) home” (pp. 248–249) Shafer et al.

Survey “Respondents indicated that trails have contributed most to community quality of life through (2000) health and fitness, the provision of natural areas, accessible recreation, land use patterns, pride in the community, and community identity.” (p. 173) Tan (2006) Case study “Singapore looks forward to completing its “Greenways, with their multifunctional network of greenways to connect people to capacity, have great potential in the areas of places wherein to experience life’s essential recreation, nature conservation, education moments of rest, recreation and wellbeing” and community bonding” (p. 65) (p. 65) Taylor et al.

Case study “This ‘ecosystem approach’ as defined “A review of the case study findings suggests (1995) includes “the whole system, not just parts of that planners of future greenways need to. it; focuses on the interrelationships among gather public support by informing and resources and land use; understands that involving local citizenry; ” (p. 63) humans are part of nature, not separate from it; ” (p. 57) Yokohari et al. Case study “Their rich vegetation was intended to shield “We would like to suggest that public (2006) them from automobiles and also from their involvement offers a solution for planning, urban surroundings to evoke the nature that designing and maintaining greenways” (p. existed before the New Town was built” (p.

220) 217) Barnhart et al. Survey “Fifty-one percent of the patient scores “Both staff and patients predominantly (1998) indicate a preference for natural settings, selected natural and open settings as their 31% for mixed built-natural settings and first choice for passive behaviours such as: 18% for built settings (p. 153) ‘sitting watching others,’ ‘sitting viewing scenery,’ ‘sitting with others watching outdoor sports’ Survey Chiesura “‘To listen and observe nature’ constitutes another important motive to visit the (2004) park (54.4%)” (p. 133) “While sporting and meeting other people apply more to the youngest age-categories, the other motives and activities – relax, stay with children and contemplating nature – seem preferred by adult and elderly visitors” (p. 134) Gobster Workshops “The chief purpose of nature. would be to “By working to integrate the different (2001) and focus provide people with an aesthetic experience” visions of nature expressed by the parks’ groups (p. 40) stakeholders and protecting the icons that they value most highly, park planners and landscape architects can build the cultural support needed to sustain natural processes and functions” (p. 50) Oguz (2000) Interview “Attractive features of the parks such as pleasant landscape and visual elements, nearness to water, peaceful atmosphere were listed as the primary reasons of satisfaction by all users” (p. 170) The main objectives of park use were “to spend time in the open air, to rest and contemplate by water and green areas, to meet and chat with friends and to get rid of the pressures of urban life” (p. 170) ¨ uner and Survey Ozg¨ “Endcliffe Park is regarded as a place in which the majority of respondents better Kendle (2006) experience the ‘sense of naturalness’ (55%) and ‘freedom’ (63.4%) and ‘socialise’ (68.1%) better than the Botanical Garden” (p. 148) Abu-Ghazzeh Interview “The role of natural environmental quality “Concentrating on economy, the designer (1996) and obser- has been a neglected aspect of open-space ignored those factors that make a vations design in Abu-Nuseir. . . Most users of neighborhood space suitable and livable and neighborhood communal spaces value that allow for the growth of individuals and natural vegetation and rate trees as one of the their community in a context of holistic most desirable elements in outdoor areas” (p. development” (p. 209) 213)

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

17

Appendix A (Continued ) Type of site

Researchers

Method

Findings/conclusions Nature contact

Human interaction

“Residents in both communities perceived having ‘nature right outside my door’ and residents in both communities found this perceived proximity to nature as contributing to their sense of well being, satisfaction, and comfort” (p. 297) “The older people do care more for green areas and view than the other groups; probably, they have more time to enjoy the natural beauty of Istanbul” (p. 52)

“Berwyn residents ranked social atmosphere for the community and locomotion (wayfinding) highest among the seven community attribute categories” (p. 282)

Crow et al.

(2006)

Survey

D¨okmeci and Berk¨oz (2000)

Survey

Hull et al.

(1994)

Interview

“The frequency with which trees (17%) and parks and gardens (13%) were mentioned illustrates a powerful bond between people and nature” (p. 117)

Lucy and Phillips (1997)

Case study

“Four factors explain exurbanization. They include: the latent antiurban and rural location preferences of U.S. households” (p.

261)

Vogt and Marans (2004)

Survey and focus groups

Rooftop gardens

Yuen and Hien (2005)

Interview

School play yards

Herrington and Studtmann (1998)

Observation

“For those who recently purchased homes in open space neighborhoods, its natural and openness features overshadowed considerations of neighborhood location, schools, and proximity to job, while for the general population survey the findings were roughly reversed. (p. 267) “She joined other respondents who were mothers with young children to suggest that roof gardens should be provided with more plants that would become the ‘honeypot’ of insects (such as butterfly and caterpillar) where their children could observe nature at close range and develop an interest in nature that may otherwise be lost in the congestion of urban life. They were keen to see more nature and less concrete in the garden” (p.

272) “Contact with natural elements in outdoor play environments is a vanishing experience of childhood. The play yards associated with these settings could become one of the primary places where young children could gain experiences with nature” (p. 204)

Stream corridors

Asakawa et al.

(2004)

Survey

Woodland or forests-urban

Coles and Bussey (2000)

Survey, interview, and focus groups

“The most important reasons for the middle-age group is proximity to relatives, then followed by job location, a clean and quiet environment, social environment and amenities” (p. 51) “Residents’ explanation for why these icons were special fell into six major categories . . . connections to residents’ pasts; symbolize the social groups to which residents belonged or with which they identified; gave the community its distinctive character; satisfied important functional needs; evoked emotions or feelings; and served as reminders of personal accomplishments and concerns” (p. 109) “The role of planning and design includes creating and adapting physical characteristics which help turn territories into places and communities or enhance the place status that has previously been achieved. If suburban territories are regarded as places toward which people feel community attachments, then suburban decline is less likely to lead to severe deterioration” (p. 274) “We wanted a rural feeling to our neighborhood, where there is space between homes. We wanted to be set back from major roads and nearby highway access” (p. 267)

“Many, especially those living near the roof gardens, appreciated the roof gardens as a space where they can bring their children to play, entertain visiting friends, hold block parties or just be alone” (p. 272)

“Connections between how a child develops socially, physically, emotionally, and cognitively, and the particulars of their outdoor environment are paramount for identifying processes and methods that will produce quality outdoor environments for children” (p. 204) “The main factors accounting for residents’ perceptions toward the stream corridors were recreational use, participation, nature and scenery, sanitary management, and water safety” (p. 180) “The emotional feelings of those visiting “The most valuable urban woodlands present urban woodlands included . . . happy, a refuge away from urban life and probably relaxed, and close to nature; a secondary human (urban) activity. ”(p. 185) group included explore and uplifted; . . .” (p.

183)

18

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19

Appendix A (Continued ) Type of site

Researchers

Simson (2000)

Method

Case study

Findings/conclusions Nature contact

Human interaction

“Initial investigations would suggest that the urban woodland/open space structure of Telford is, by and large, very successful and much loved by the local people (Wrekin Council, 1993; Simson, 1998b)” (p. 194)

“The author believes there are advantages in such diversity: the variety of species gives rise to “local distinctiveness”, an important aspect of the design of large areas of new development; different species can help to establish “place” in the minds of new residents and children; ” (p. 194)

References Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M., 1996. Reclaiming public space: the ecology of neighborhood open spaces in the town of Abu-Nuseir, Jordan. Landscape Urban Plan.

36, 197–216.

Al-Hathloul, S., Mughal, M.A., 1999. Creating identity in new communities: case studies from Saudi Arabia. Landscape Urban Plan. 44, 199–218.

Al-Kodmany, K., 1999. Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: process, implementation, and evaluation.

Landscape Urban Plan. 45, 37–45.

Antupit, S., Gray, B., Woods, S., 1996. Steps ahead: making streets that work in Seattle, Washington. Landscape Urban Plan. 35, 107–122.

Asakawa, S., Yoshida, K., Yabe, K., 2004. Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landscape Urban Plan. 68, 167–182.

Austin, M.E., 2004. Resident perspectives of the open space conservation subdivision in Hamburg Township, Michigan. Landscape Urban Plan. 69, 245–253.

Balram, S., Dragi´cevi´c, S., 2005. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude measurements. Landscape Urban Plan. 71, 147–162.

Barnhart, S.K., Perkins, N.H., Fitzsimonds, J., 1998. Behaviour and outdoor setting preferences at a psychiatric hospital. Landscape Urban Plan. 42, 147–156.

Berg, P.G., 2004. Sustainability resources in Swedish townscape neighbourhoods: results from the model project H˚agaby and comparisons with three common residential areas. Landscape Urban Plan. 68, 29–52.

Brody, S.D., Highfield, W., Peck, B.M., 2005. Exploring the mosaic of perceptions for water quality across watersheds in San Antonio, Texas. Landscape Urban Plan. 73, 200–214.

Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M., Kienast, F., 2003. Participatory landscape development: overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape Urban Plan. 64, 29–46.

Carles, J.L., Barrio, I.L., de Lucio, J.V., 1999. Sound influence on landscape values. Landscape Urban Plan. 43, 191–200.

Chiesura, A., 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape Urban Plan. 68, 129–138.

Coles, R.W., Bussey, S.C., 2000. Urban forest landscapes in the UK—progressing the social agenda. Landscape Urban Plan. 52, 181– 188.

Crow, T., Brown, T., De Young, R., 2006. The Riverside and Berwyn experience: contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscape, and their effects on people. Landscape Urban Plan. 75, 282–299.

Damigos, D., Kaliampakos, D., 2003. Assessing the benefits of reclaiming urban quarries: a CVM analysis. Landscape Urban Plan. 64, 249–258.

Daniels, G.D., Kirkpatrick, J.B., 2006. Comparing the characteristics of front and back domestic gardens in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. Landscape Urban Plan. 78, 344–352.

De Sousa, C.A., 2003. Turning brownfields into green space in the city of Toronto. Landscape Urban Plan. 62, 181–198.

D¨okmeci, V., Berk¨oz, L., 2000. Residential-location preferences according to demographic characteristics in Istanbul. Landscape Urban Plan. 48, 45– 55.

Ellis, C.D., Lee, S.W., Kweon, B., 2006. Retail land use, neighborhood satisfaction and the urban forest: an investigation into the moderating and mediating effects of trees and shrubs. Landscape Urban Plan. 74, 70–78.

Fjørtoft, I., Sageie, J., 2000. The natural environment as a playground for children: landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape Urban Plan. 48, 83–97.

Fordham, M., Tunstall, S., Penning-Rowsell, E.C., 1991. Choice and preference in the Thames Floodplain: the beginnings of a participatory approach?

Landscape Urban Plan. 20, 183–187.

Frischenbruder, M.T.M., Pellegrino, P., 2006. Using greenways to reclaim nature in Brazilian cities. Landscape Urban Plan. 76, 67–78.

Ge, J., Hokao, K., 2006. Research on residential lifestyles in Japanese cities from the viewpoints of residential preference, residential choice and residential satisfaction. Landscape Urban Plan. 78, 165–178.

Gobster, P.H., 1995. Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landscape Urban Plan. 33, 401–413.

Gobster, P.H., 1998. Urban parks as green walls or green magnets? Interracial relations in neighborhood boundary parks. Landscape Urban Plan. 41, 43–55.

Gobster, P.H., 2001. Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration. Landscape Urban Plan. 56, 35–51.

Hands, D.E., Brown, R.D., 2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape Urban Plan. 58, 57–70.

Helfand, G.E., Park, J.S., Nassauer, J.I., Kosek, S., 2006. The economics of native plants in residential landscape designs. Landscape Urban Plan. 78, 229–240.

Henderson, S.P.B., Perkins, N.H., Nelischer, M., 1998. Residential lawn alternatives: a study of their distribution, form and structure. Landscape Urban Plan. 42, 135–145.

Herrington, S., Studtmann, K., 1998. Landscape interventions: new directions for the design of children’s outdoor play environments. Landscape Urban Plan. 42, 191–205.

H¨ornsten, L., Fredman, P., 2000. On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden. Landscape Urban Plan. 51, 1–10.

Huang, S-C.L., 2006. A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Landscape Urban Plan. 78, 193–204.

Hull IV, R.B., Lam, M., Vigo, G., 1994. Place identity: symbols of self in the urban fabric. Landscape Urban Plan. 28, 109–120.

Jim, C.Y., 1993. Trees and landscape of a suburban residential neighbourhood in Hong Kong. Landscape Urban Plan. 23, 119–143.

Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., 2006a. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou. China. Landscape Urban Plan. 75, 81–96.

Jim, C.Y., Chen, W.Y., 2006b. Impacts of urban environmental elements on residential housing prices in Guangzhou (China). Landscape Urban Plan.

78, 422–434.

Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., Calvert, T., 2002. Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape Urban Plan.

60, 135–150.

Kaplan, R., 1993. The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape Urban Plan. 26, 193–201.

Kaplan, R., Austin, M.E., 2004. Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature nearby. Landscape Urban Plan. 69, 235–243.

R.H. Matsuoka, R. Kaplan / Landscape and Urban Planning 84 (2008) 7–19 K¨uhn, M., 2003. Greenbelt and Green Heart: separating and integrating landscapes in European city regions. Landscape Urban Plan. 64, 19–27.

Lange, E., Schaeffer, P.V., 2001. A comment on the market value of a room with a view. Landscape Urban Plan. 55, 113–120.

Larsen, L., Harlan, S.L., 2006. Desert dreamscapes: residential landscape preference and behavior. Landscape Urban Plan. 78, 85–100.

Lindsey, G., 1999. Use of urban greenways: insights from Indianapolis. Landscape Urban Plan. 45, 145–157.

Lucy, W.H., Phillips, D.L., 1997. The post-suburban era comes to Richmond: city decline, suburban transition, and exurban growth. Landscape Urban Plan. 36, 259–275.

Luttik, J., 2000. The value of trees, water and open space as reflected by house prices in the Netherlands. Landscape Urban Plan. 48, 161–167.

Luymes, D., 1997. The fortification of suburbia: investigating the rise of enclave communities. Landscape Urban Plan. 39, 187–203.

Martin, C.A., Warren, P.S., Kinzig, A.P., 2004. Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Phoenix, AZ. Landscape Urban Plan. 69, 355–368.

Mok, J.-H., Landphair, H.C., Naderi, J.R., 2006. Landscape improvement impacts on roadside safety in Texas. Landscape Urban Plan. 78, 263–274.

Morancho, A.B., 2003. A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landscape Urban Plan. 66, 35–41.

Naderi, J.R., Raman, B., 2005. Capturing impressions of pedestrian landscapes used for healing purposes with decision tree learning. Landscape Urban Plan.

73, 155–166.

Nasar, J.L., Kang, J., 1999. House style preference and meaning across taste cultures. Landscape Urban Plan. 44, 33–42.

Oguz, D., 2000. User surveys of Ankara’s urban parks. Landscape Urban Plan.

52, 165–171.

Oku, H., Fukamachi, K., 2006. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape Urban Plan. 75, 34–42.

Owens, P.E., 1997. Adolescence and the cultural landscape: public policy, design decisions, and popular press reporting. Landscape Urban Plan. 39, 153–166.

Owens, P.M., 1993. Neighborhood form and pedestrian life: taking a closer look.

Landscape Urban Plan. 26, 115–135. ¨ uner, H., Kendle, A.D., 2006. Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus Ozg¨ designed landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape Urban Plan.

74, 139–157.

Pacione, M., 2003. Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social geographical perspective. Landscape Urban Plan. 65, 19–30.

Palmer, J.F., 1997. Stability of landscape perception in the face of landscape change. Landscape Urban Plan. 37, 109–113.

Pauleit, S., Ennos, R., Golding, Y., 2005. Modeling the environmental impacts of urban land use and land cover change—a study in Merseyside, UK. Landscape Urban Plan. 71, 295–310.

Quayle, M., 1995. Urban greenways and public ways: realizing public ideas in a fragmented world. Landscape Urban Plan. 33, 461–475.

Rodiek, S.D., Fried, J.T., 2005. Access to the outdoors: using photographic comparison to assess preferences of assisted living residents. Landscape Urban Plan. 73, 184–199.

Roovers, P., Hermy, M., Gulinck, H., 2002. Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium. Landscape Urban Plan. 59, 129–145.

Saleh, M.A.E., 1999. Reviving traditional design in modern Saudi Arabia for social cohesion and crime prevention purposes. Landscape Urban Plan. 44, 43–62.

Sancar, F.H., 1993. An integrative approach to public participation and knowledge generation in design. Landscape Urban Plan. 26, 67–88.

Schauman, S., Salisbury, S., 1998. Restoring nature in the city: Puget Sound experiences. Landscape Urban Plan. 42, 287–295.

Shafer, C.S., Lee, B.K., Turner, S., 2000. A tale of three greenway trails: user perceptions related to quality of life. Landscape Urban Plan. 49, 163–178.

19

Sherman, S.A., Varni, J.W., Ulrich, R.S., Malcarne, V.L., 2005. Post-occupancy evaluation of healing gardens in a pediatric cancer center. Landscape Urban Plan. 73, 167–183.

Simson, A.J., 2000. The post-romantic landscape of Telford New Town. Landscape Urban Plan. 52, 189–197.

Solecki, W.D., Welch, J.M., 1995. Urban parks: green spaces or green walls?

Landscape Urban Plan. 32, 93–106.

Stewart, W.P., Liebert, D., Larkin, K.W., 2004. Community identities as visions for landscape change. Landscape Urban Plan. 69, 315–334.

Sullivan, W.C., 1994. Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: citizen preferences for natural and developed settings. Landscape Urban Plan. 29, 85–101.

Sullivan, W.C., Lovell, S.T., 2006. Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landscape Urban Plan. 77, 152–166.

Syme, G.J., Fenton, D.M., Coakes, S., 2001. Lot size, garden satisfaction and local park and wetland visitation. Landscape Urban Plan. 56, 161–170.

Syme, G.J., Shao, Q., Po, M., Campbell, E., 2004. Predicting and understanding home garden water use. Landscape Urban Plan. 68, 121–128.

Tan, K.W., 2006. A greenway network for Singapore. Landscape Urban Plan.

76, 45–66.

Taylor, J., Paine, C., FitzGibbon, J., 1995. From greenbelt to greenways: four Canadian case studies. Landscape Urban Plan. 33, 47–64.

Toccolini, A., Fumagalli, N., Senes, G., 2006. Greenways planning in Italy: the Lambro River Valley Greenways System. Landscape Urban Plan. 76, 98–111.

Todorova, A., Asakawa, S., Aikoh, T., 2004. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape Urban Plan.

69, 403–416.

T¨urko˘glu, H.D., 1997. Residents’ satisfaction of housing environments: the case of Istanbul, Turkey. Landscape Urban Plan. 39, 55–67.

Tyrv¨ainen, L., 1997. The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape Urban Plan. 37, 211–222.

Tyrv¨ainen, L., V¨aa¨ n¨anen, H., 1998. The economic value of urban forest amenities: an application of the contingent valuation method. Landscape Urban Plan. 43, 105–118.

Vogt, C.A., Marans, R.W., 2004. Natural resources and open space in the residential decision process: a study of recent movers to fringe counties in southeast Michigan. Landscape Urban Plan. 69, 255–269.

Von Haaren, C., Reich, M., 2006. The German way to greenways and habitat networks. Landscape Urban Plan. 76, 7–22.

Yabes, R., Shetter, K., Schneeman, J., 1997. Urban waterways: changing historical uses and users in a southwestern desert city. Landscape Urban Plan. 39, 167–185.

Yamashita, S., 2002. Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: use of Photo-Projective Method to compare child and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japanese river environment. Landscape Urban Plan. 62, 3–17.

Yokohari, M., Amemiya, M., Amati, M., 2006. The history and future directions of greenways in Japanese New Towns. Landscape Urban Plan. 76, 210–222.

Yuen, B., Hien, W.N., 2005. Resident perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardens in Singapore. Landscape Urban Plan. 73, 263–276.

Zacharias, J., 1999. Preferences for view corridors through the urban environment. Landscape Urban Plan. 43, 217–225.

Zmyslony, J., Gagnon, D., 1998. Residential management of urban front-yard landscape: a random process? Landscape Urban Plan. 40, 295–307.

Rodney H. Matsuoka is currently a landscape architecture PhD candidate in the School of Natural Resources and Environment, at the University of Michigan.

His research explores the human needs and preferences that underlie successful landscape designs. His current efforts focus on the psychological, social, and health benefits provided by contact with natural features in the outdoor environment.

Rachel Kaplan is Samuel T. Dana professor of environment and behavior in the School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. Her research focuses on the role of the nearby natural environment in well-being and on understanding ways in which environments can bring out the best in people.